Decision Intelligence, built around challenge.

You state the decision, the option you prefer, constraints you already know, and any alternatives you want on the table. The intake becomes the starting record, not a chat prompt that disappears.

Your Position, the Challenger, and the Alternative each build a case. The alternative must be executable. A rhetorical opposite is not a third option.

Material public claims are investigated. Sources are tied to claims. A contextual article is not treated as proof of a stronger statement.

Claims are classified as fact, assumption, estimate, prediction, or opinion, then given an evidence status you can read.

The product attacks consequential claims. Generic skepticism is not the method.

Decision-specific risks and mitigations are identified and remain visible in the record.

Options are scored against explicit, weighted, decision-specific criteria. You can inspect why a criterion moved.

An independent judge reads the record and names a recommended option, confidence, remaining uncertainty, and what could reverse the call.

You can run a second attack that assumes the verdict may be wrong.

After you accept a decision, you can record what actually happened. Argumont does not invent outcomes.

Over time, a workspace can compare forecasts with results. Shared multi-user editing is not live.